Intel holds a dominant position in the computer industry, with over 79.1 percent market share in the microprocessor market, according to iSuppli reports from the summer (these reports included by x86 architecture microprocessors as well as alternatives like ARM). In May 2009 the European Union's antitrust regulators fined the chipmaker $1.45B USD -- about a fourth of the company's 2008 net income ($5.292B USD) -- for allegedly using discounts and OEM payoffs to push its smaller competitor Advanced Micro Devices out of the market. That ruling is currently being appealed.

In the U.S. the Federal Trade Commission has investigated similar claims. The State of New York has filed suit against the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company for antitrust violations, but thus far no federal litigation had been filed. That all changed today with the FTC suing Intel, citing numerous antitrust violations.

The landmark case comes on the heels of Intel's $1.25B USD settlement with AMD over similar claims. Under that agreement AMD agreed to drop all pending and present litigation against its rival. According to the FTC's lawsuit filing, Intel is depriving customers of free choice and is stifling the progress of the computer industry. The filing says that Intel employed a carrot-and-stick sort of approach, using both threats and rewards to keep OEMs from using its competitors' products. Reportedly Intel used such targets on Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and IBM Corp.

One of the more interesting aspects of the case is that the FTC claims to have evidence that Intel wrote compiler software (Intel makes one of the more commonly used commercial C++ code compilers, the Intel C++ Compiler) to sabotage the performance of its competitors' CPUs. Little is known about this allegation at this point.

Richard Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, says Intel's violations are blatant and alarming. He states, "Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly. It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission's action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer."

The FTC case looks to prevent Intel from employing "threats, bundled prices, or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition, or unfairly manipulate the prices of its" CPUs.

I don't see why the government deserves money just because intel broke the law. 100% of the "profits" of this suit (minus the legal fees and such) should be immediately pumped back into the industry to intel's competators.

Otherwise they are just taking an industry that has become solely reliant on a single supplier and crippled that supplier. So everybody loses.

Who do you think? Real people committed numerous crimes in the name of the company, and yes even the CEO because it happened on his watch. Jail is a better motivator than money alone. The share holders should be mad too because the value of their holdings has gone down with every fine paid.

quote: I don't see why the government deserves money just because intel broke the law. 100% of the "profits" of this suit (minus the legal fees and such) should be immediately pumped back into the industry to intel's competators.

Its really not about the money, its a deterrent, this should be pretty obvious..

quote: Otherwise they are just taking an industry that has become solely reliant on a single supplier and crippled that supplier. So everybody loses.

No Intel loses, you would be hard pressed to name an industry in which opening up the doors to more competition would be a bad thing for consumers. Crippling Intel would do just that.. open up the doors..

Now on the other hand I can think of many situations in which a company that completely dominates a market is a bad thing for consumers..

Umm no. "Crippling Intel" doesn't magically make competition better. Why don't we have 20 companies making CPU's right now ? Because they are extremely expensive to develop, the manufacturing investment to make them is astronomical, and your profit margins are very low.

Hurting Intel isn't going to magically make AMD better or new CPU companies pop up and start competing.

Intel single handedly holds the PC market as we know it by the balls. The world runs on x86, its just not possible for a smaller company to persuade people on a mass scale to switch. So why don't we have 20 cpu companies right now? Well for one Intel has put pretty much everyone out of business who has tried, and nobody else, even those that want to can get into the x86 market as Intel won't license x86.

I'm not some crying AMD fan, I'm just looking at the facts, the PC market will be a much better place when the bulk of Intel's patents expire, thats for sure...